Sunday, December 10, 2017

Stuart Campbell of Wings has tweeted the following Survation polling figures, which appear to be from a new full-scale Scottish poll. I can't find any other reference to them yet, so I suppose there's an outside chance they may turn out to be from a subsample or something like that, but I doubt it. If it is indeed a full poll, it's the fifth to be published since the general election, and the fourth of those to suggest that the SNP's support is higher than it was on polling day. (The exception was the previous Survation poll a few days ago that had the SNP on exactly the same 37% vote share they managed in June.)

Scottish voting intentions for the next Westminster general election (Survation):

Note: the percentage changes listed above differ from the ones in the Sunday Post graphic tweeted by Stuart, because I'm using the most recent Survation poll as the baseline, whereas the Post are using the last Survation poll but one.

We've now had three Survation polls since the election, and the sequence of results for the SNP has been 39-37-38. That's the kind of minor fluctuation that is easily consistent with margin of error noise, so it could well be that SNP support bounced back a little after the general election aftermath and has remained steady over the last two or three months. It's also worth recalling that the two non-Survation polls in the early autumn had the SNP in the low 40s, which leaves open the possibility that SNP support has been running steady at an even higher level than Survation are suggesting.

It's easy to become distracted by the eye-catching detail of Labour overtaking the Tories to reclaim second place, but the bottom line is that the SNP are the challengers in all of the Scottish seats held by the Tories. What will determine whether the Tories can hold what they have is the lead held over them by the SNP - and, according to this poll, that lead has increased from eight points at the general election to a whopping fourteen points now. And the direction of travel could be the most troubling thing of all for Ruth Davidson - if the lead grows to twenty points or more, the Tories could be facing carnage at the next election.

As for the SNP v Labour battle, it's much harder to judge. This poll, just like the last Survation poll, implies a trivial net swing of 0.5% from SNP to Labour, which because of the large number of ultra-marginal seats would be enough to move several to the Labour column. But the snag is that no poll can really be that precise due to the margin of error. The figures are also perfectly consistent with a small swing from Labour to SNP, which could see the SNP regaining seats from Labour as well as the Tories.

Unlike the Survation poll a few days ago which dented the "progress for Labour" narrative by suggesting Labour's Holyrood support was absolutely static, this one does suggest a bit of an advance. Obviously it's unlikely that anything significant has changed over such a short time-scale, so the difference can probably be explained by the margin of error, and we'll have to wait for more information to discover where the truth lies.

Voting intentions for next Scottish independence referendum:

Yes 46% (-1)No 54% (+1)

No statistically significant changes on independence, but what very much is significant is that this is the third Survation poll in a row to put Yes support higher than the 45% recorded in the September 2014 referendum, and indeed substantially higher than the 43% recorded in the post-election Survation poll in June.

* * *

UPDATE: Confirmation from Stuart on Twitter - "It's a full-size poll. 1006 respondents, 1-5 December." It looks like Survation didn't send out the usual embargoed information about the poll (perhaps at the Sunday Post's request), because even several hours later it's barely been mentioned anywhere online. Britain Elects haven't reported it, and it hasn't made it onto the Wikipedia list yet.

* * *

UPDATE II: The regional list results from the poll have now been revealed, and oddly enough Labour's step forward on the constituency ballot hasn't been mirrored at all on the list.

Oh your back wee Fat Ruthie should you not be spending more time a)trying to find out where Glasgow is or b) working to get your Tory party ahead of your other Tory party you know Red ones since your lot aren't doing so well.

Im normally a Labour voter and won't be be voting for them again until after independence. I put democratic socialism before British unionism, the leader of Labour in Scotland doesn't. I'm also pro Europe, the current Labour party leadership aren't. Have absolutely no confidence in Labour.

Tom, these figures are remarkably good (at least as far as Westminster and the indyref are concerned), and beyond what we could realistically have expected during the summer. 46% is a wonderful platform to build a Yes victory on - just a very small swing required.

James, thanks for the reassurance (on the indy numbers particularly). I would have thought that with all the Brexit horror, and general incompetence we are seeing from Westminster, the indy figures would have been much higher.

Would you say this is because the general public (those are not really into politics) are not engaged at the moment? I am struggling to imagine anyone other than the committed BritNats who would not support indy now.

I think th U.K. govt needs to make a ‘Clarification Act’ in the same way the Canadians did after the 1995 referendum. Even if the polls show 51% in favour of yes who’s to say that won’t go down in months or years to come? It’s just a snapshot of opinions at the time. And what about the 15-40% of people who don’t vote and are therefore content with the status quo? Shouldn’t they be respected? Any future referendum would need 51% of THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE to vote yes in my opinion - this is such a huge constitutional issue. I wish the Brexit referendum had the same rule. Less than 40% ACTUALLY VOTED yes for independence and yes to Brexit. I think Scotland should be offered full fiscal autonomy in a referendum and see what percentage of the population wants that. We can’t have a neveremdum it’s not fair.

So, if the result of the ref was 51 percent of those who voted for indy, there would be no indy, and if 51 percent voted against indy, there would be no indy? Sounds great if you're determined to prevent indy but pretty dreadful otherwise

I just feel that the majority needs to vote for independence - people who don’t vote might be content with the status quo. Simple majorities (rather than absolute majorities) on a low turnout are not necessarily a good way of determining public opinion. In the Catalan referendum, only a minority of people voted for independence even though 90% of those who voted, did. Many pro-Spain voters boycotted the referendum.

In my humble opinion, you have to seek consent from the clear and absolute majority in order to enact massive constitutional change. Just my opinion.

If you can't be arsed voting you don't care what the outcome is, so neither for or against. Demanding that the result is on a % of the population is talk from someone who is scared their side will lose.

No, we ask when people determine it is right to ask, so yes it will and should be a neverendum.That is also the case after we have our independence, if enough people want to rejoin the the Union, and of course if the other party (rUK) wishes it, then a vote should be held. That however is unlikely as I don't recall there ever being a Country gaining its independence asking to rejoin.Maybe that last point is what frightens you so much?

The Montenegrin independence referendum in 2006 needed a 55% threshold for example, recognising the need for a clear majority. The Clarity Act 2000 (Canada) requires a clear majority as determined by their House of Commons.

Non voters need to be taken into account.

The U.K. govt and Scottish govts will need to agree on the franchise otherwise you’ll get another Catalan mess.

Brexit shouldn’t have happened on such tiny majority and on a turnout that made the majority in fact a minority.

I believe most nation states agree with this which is why Catalonia isn’t recognised as being independent despite its UDI.

I take your point Hood, and yes I am scared of the island breaking up (by the way am I welcome to post on here being pro-UK?).

At the last Indyref the U.K. govt agreed with the Scottish govt 50% plus one of a simple majority, but that doesn’t mean that’ll be the same again. Thinking ridiculously - the U.K. may even state a stipulation that every part of Scotland vote to leave (Orkney & Shetland, the borders etc) otherwise those pets stay!

The UK can try that if they think but they would be on stony ground seeing as they didn't recognise such a thing for the 4 Countries that make up the UK during Brexit never mind regions of these Countries. Trying to gerrymander usually ends up with the opposite of what it is designed to do.

Regarding whether you are welcome here or not, well not my decision but I don't think anyone would object as long as things are kept relatively civil. Everyone's point is valid as far as I am concerned, I can agree or disagree with your point in a civil manner (some plonker pulling included) as I am sure you do with mine :)

Thanks, Hood. I was just playing devil’s advocate a bit there with the regions of Scotland.

From my perspective, hopefully the Scottish govt will continue not to want to press for another referendum (as the polls hopefully continue to show a small majority for the union which puts off Nicola Sturgeon from doing that).

Then it’s all about the next Scottish Parliament election and hopefully a pro-union majority to put this to bed for a long while at least!

I was wondering if you were actually GWC2 off the piss for the night but even when sober he would not be as coherent so.....

Interested though why it is that you are so keen on staying in the Union and so scared of losing it?

My position has always, from as far back as I can remember, been that I could never understand how Scotland could let its neighbours tell it what it can and can't do.If it was truly an equal union there would be equal amounts of representatives from each part of that union so that none alone could over rule all the others put together.

The U.K. is a unitary state and there is a strong argument to say it should be a federal one as its citizens feel less British and more Scottish/English/Welsh/N Irish but I still feel some political union should always continue:- we’re a small island already and I don’t want an international border in our island- we share resources e.g. pensions, defence, welfare, even sport- we have more foreign relevance- devolution brings local issues closer to home

But Scotland doesn’t let its neighbours tell it what to do in the U.K. Parliament in the same way Shetland doesn’t let the Scottish Parliament tell it what to do, they’re just voices that make up part of something bigger. I know that Scotland only makes up 8% of the U.K. population do it can be outvoted if you like but at least it can influence the U.K. from within (the Conservatives would have a majority right now if the Scottish MPs were taken away).

The U.K. has been a successful union for centuries and I don’t feel that the Scottish, English, Welsh or N Irish are foreigners to each-other.

And that the UK has been a 'successful union for centuries' is quite debatable. What is your definition of successful? Impoverishing Scotland? Driving down its population *which was a substantially higher percentage in 1707)? The Clearances? Destroying Scottish industry? If the UK is a successful union then all indications regarding poverty, health, housing and income suggest that very little fo that success accrued to Scotland.

Niall, I was talking about the island of Great Britain in this instance.

JR Tomlin, no we don’t know for sure, but shouldn’t we be sure before embarking on massive constitutional change?

I think the best thing to do is see how the people vote on FFA instead of full independence, seems a good compromise to me.

I’d argue the union has worked for Scotland - financial benefits, shared services, greater defence, not being foreign people on the same island, shared international standing, shared sporting success when GB or U.K. compete as a whole. Devolution has worked well too.

"Niall, I was talking about the island of Great Britain in this instance."

No, you weren't. You started your comment by saying 'the UK is a unitary state'. You didn't mention Great Britain.

I just find it interesting how many of those people who wear their Britishness on their sleeve so often brush over Northern Ireland in embarrassment. Of course there are some who go to the opposite extreme and become more loyalist than the loyalists - like the dickhead who constantly infests this blog with its sectarian dribbling, below.

You seem to have a big problem with 'foreign people being on the same island' (why is this such a nightmare scenario for you?) but keeping the UK together does exactly this to the people of Ireland. Yet that doesn't seem to be a problem for you. Why not?

I apologise for my inconsistency and sloppy language - I’ll try to be more coherent:

-I’m proud of all four nations coming together at the U.K.-I’m in favour of massive devolution in a federal U.K. where the U.K. parliament looks out for defence, foreign affairs, the currency and basic welfare.-I’m not in favour of full independence for any country of the U.K. and I wish Ireland didn’t have a border on it but I don’t think Britain should have one either.-I wish Southern Ireland hadn’t left as I consider us all to be ‘a people’.-I hope to convince you that a new Act if Union for a federal U.K. is needed to bring together the yeses and nos.-I hope one of the unionist parties advocates this in the next Scottish Parliament elections and full independence is off the agenda.- the SNP do good work but I hope the Scottish Parliament has a pro independence minority at the next election to reflect the public.

"-I wish Southern Ireland hadn’t left as I consider us all to be ‘a people’."

Of course you're entitled to wish what you want to wish but... anyone with a cursory knowledge of Irish history doesn't feel this way. (also, without wanting to keep pulling you up it's the Republic of Ireland, not Southern Ireland).

I'm not sure how this new Act of Union you suggest would work. In the context of a Brexit (possibly hard Brexit) being forced through against the wishes of the electorate of 2 of the 4 constituent parts of the UK, I struggle to see how the politics could be favourable to such an initiative. Brexit only works if you accept that the most populous part of the UK has the right to impose its will on the other parts.

There is no middle ground the Irish and Scottish Nat sis hate the English. They are Old World Catholics who live in the past and do not understand the real Scots. They are the reason we Scots voted for the Union. You are good with words Niall and that is all. We are better!

Sorry Niall but I know I have this one I have right - it was Southern Ireland in 1922 when it left.

‘The most populous part has its right to impose its will on other parts’

But that’s democracy- that’s the same in the UK as with France or Italy or any nation state - one person one vote.

In the Scottish Parliament Orkney & Shetland usually (always?) votes Lib Dem but they never get a Lib Dem govt - that’s democracy in Scotland.

If enough Scots had voted remain that would have tipped the balance back to a remain result.

It’s debating with you and I can see you’re a very intelligent person; we just have fundamentally different views - I will leave this forum if anyone wants as I appreciate being pro U.K. on an anti U.K. website could be provocative.

The vow was just a newspaper headline I don’t remember any politician using that term. However, you can’t deny the Scottish Parliament has got more powerful since 2014 with the Scotland Act and the Smith commmision.

My goal is to convince enough yes voters that a loose federal U.K. is the way forward to compromise with the 45%.

"Sorry Niall but I know I have this one I have right - it was Southern Ireland in 1922 when it left. "

Sorry, but you don't! It was the Free State in 1922 which later became the Republic. The reason the term 'Southern Ireland' is inaccurate is because, geographically, the most northerly point on the island of Ireland is in Co. Donegal, and thus in the 'South'.

This might seem pedantic of me but I can tell you that people in Ireland really do appreciate getting the terms used to describe the country correct. It's been unfortunate over the past couple of months that the loudest British-identified people (the Brexiteers) seem to often speak in such a dismissive and inaccurate way about Ireland, as if it weren't truly a sovereign and independent nation: if you want to build a respect agenda (which I agree with you on) it's important to get these things right.

"The most populous part has its right to impose its will on other parts’

'But that’s democracy'

Well, it depends. You haven't given much detail for how the loose federal UK you would like to see would work, but in certain types of federation smaller parts often do block the will of larger parts. As you will be aware, the United States treats all states formally equal when it comes to the composition of the US Senate, regardless of population size, giving the smaller rural states an advantage. In the EU also, veto power still remains for individual member states on certain issues, including a future EU-UK deal (and perhaps future membership of an independent Scotland). A loose federal UK thus might well have given each of its component nations a veto when it came to major changes in external affairs, such as relations with Europe.

"However, you can’t deny the Scottish Parliament has got more powerful since 2014 with the Scotland Act and the Smith commmision."

But what was promised was the maximum amount of devolution consistent with remaining in the UK. And now Gordon Brown is promising it again. Without a clear path to actually achieving this oft-repeated promise, why should anyone inclined to vote for independence take it seriously?

While striving to convince enough yes voters that a loose federal UK (however you intend to define this) is the way forward, don't forget you also have to convince unionists from all parts of the UK. That might be the more difficult task

" I will leave this forum if anyone wants as I appreciate being pro U.K. on an anti U.K. website could be provocative."

I'm personally very happy for you to stay, you are much politer and more reasoned than most of the pro-UK posters we get here. James usually has a liberal comment policy, so I wouldn't worry about being made to feel unwelcome.

As ever your arguments are sound and I’ll concede that democracy doesn’t necessarily mean one person one vote - and the movement of travel is towards a more federal and yes unitary U.K. - and a ‘consituent country’ veto might be appropriate as the devolved parliaments get stronger.

I think English people want a devolved parliament too so hopefully that will happen one day.

It’s good to learn why people are pro independence - & I’m proud that Scotland and the U.K. has a respectful democracy & amicably agree on referenda franchises.

I look forward to more debates in future.

Before we draw this debate to a close - (I can’t let this go!) I know ‘Southern Ireland is not a term the Irish in the Rep of Ireland would recognise now and nobody should use it for the country’s now BUT I was correct for 1922 - The Home Rule crisis created 2 Parliaments in Ireland - the Parliament of NI and the Parliament of SI, recognising the diffusing views of catholics some counties and Protestants in the other - Southern Ireland existed before the Irish Free State for a very brief period when it was still de jure in the U.K. Therefore it was SI that left (at the time).

The so-called 'House of Commons of Southern Ireland' was what the British intended to set up, but it was never recognised by Sinn Fein, the representatives of the majority of the Irish people at the time (albeit elected unopposed, and in the middle of a war). Only 4 representatives (unionists) attended the only meeting of the body, the SF members instead convened as Dail Eireann.

The fact that the UK decrees something does not make it so (as David Davis is now finding out). 'Southern Ireland' was never a political entity recognised by the overwhelming majority of the people south or west of what is now the Irish border, and it is therefore not historically accurate to speak of 'Southern Ireland' as having any existence outside of the heads of a few people in Whitehall.

So I still believe that the entity which left the UK was the 'Free State'.

But so we can end on a note of agreement, as someone who has spent quite a few years living in England I can certainly agree with the desire for more devolution there, though I think there's an argument for regional assemblies perhaps instead of an English parliament.

I tell you what - we’re both right - it was a de jure (but never de facto) political entity for a brief period until the U.K. acknowledged the Irish Free State.

Yes I believe you’re right - England may have too high a population to have a devolved Parliament, but people didn’t want regional parliaments at least in the north east, so it may have to continue to be ruled directly by the U.K. for some time to come.

You nat sis should be steaking ahead in the polls since the British UK decided to get out of the EU.The problem you have is your core vote is a minority of English haters who would sell out to the German Franco 4th Reich. The sensible Brit real Scots of Scottish heritage still support the Union and are still demographically breeding enough to to outdo the incomers.

Hit a wee raw nerve there Wee Ruthie your lot should be ahead since your London Masters have got such a great brexit deal but you lot are now third behind the SNP's huge lead and behind the Red Tories. still who would vote for you when you look like Kim Yung 11. Now wee Ruthie toddle of now and cover your fat arse.

James, I admire your endurance and your confidence. But I have lost all confidence that there will be a majority for independence anytime soon (that is: in the next 5 years or so). With all the Brexit chaos and everything going wrong for the Tory government right now, how is 46% good news? What would have to happen for that figure to become 51%?

Help me out. Am I missing something? Because the way I see it, the SNP might as well blow the whole Indyref 2 thing off.

We can take comfort from polls before the last referendum campaign showing support for indy as low as 28 percent..... Sometimes you have to make stuff happen rather than lamenting that it hasn't happened already

Anon, I have to say I'm not totally convinced you're "on my team". This blog has periodically been the target of concern trolling (especially in 2014), and if someone posts this kind of "we're all doomed" nonsense in an anonymous comment, it's obviously impossible for me to work out whether it's meant genuinely or whether there's something more sinister going on. Suffice to say, yes, you are missing a fundamental point (in fact several) and when I have more time I'll try to respond to you in detail.

Sure, I get that you don't trust an anonymous poster without any track record, but I assure you I mean this in all sincerity.

When the UK voted leave while Scotland voted remain, my initial reaction was "well this changes everything. That's just what was needed to push support for independence over 50%". Well, that's just not what happened.

I thought (at least that's what I took away from your blog) the London government tricked just enough undecided voters with their "vow" in 2014, knowing that there wouldn't be any Indyref 2 for at least 10 years or so, meaning they wouldn't have to keep the promise. But then Brexit came along, opening up the case for a second referendum within 1-2 years.

But where is the majority? Don't the polls show that Yes support pretty much flatlined at somewhere at 44-46%, exactly where it has been all the time since 2014. I certainly don't follow the numbers with the same rigor as you do, but (very much to my disappointment) I didn't see an outcry over a broken vow, over "being dragged out of the EU against our will" or anything like that.

I get that you think all this is nonsense. But still, I would be thankful if you could inform me what "fundamental point" I'm missing.

Btw I'm posting as anonymous since I can't log in to any account in my company's network. But either way, I post so rarely on this site that my name wouldn't help you very much anyway.

You are a blawhard. Scotland is in the UK. The UK voted to leave the EU beaurocracy. The Joke Nat si party participated in the referendum thus legitimising it... The jockos could have recommended to their devout faithful to boycott the referendum.